tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC March 25, 2019 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
friend watching a complicated issue that's moving fast over the weekend. i watched you and understood it through watching you and the great interviews you had and experience that you brought to this story because you know donald trump better than most of us do. i want to say thank you because i get it because of you. >> thank you, i can't take credit for it. we have an incredible team. julia ainsley and pete williams and tom winter and the white house. everybody, we have been covering this story since day one, all the ins and outs. i am so happy that you thought it was understandable. >>. >> you were able to bring things in realtime that it happened because you were covering the campaign. this is a continuum and a narrative and it started a long time ago and it did not finish yet. >> ali velshi, we'll miss you. see you in one hour. federal prosecutors are
outlining charges against michael avenatti. they alleged he embezzled client's money to pay his own expenses and defrauded a bank by using phony tax returns to obtain millions of dollars in loans. federal prosecutors in new york will announce a different set of charges against avenatti. these related to allegations of extortion of the company nike. we'll get into this in a couple of minutes. first, we want to get to the mueller report. the new york times puts it today, the darkest and ominous clouds hanging over trump's presidency was all but lifted on sunday. william barr's summary of the report, the special counsel did not find that donald trump or the campaign conspired with the russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. the president and his aides have
seized mueller's findings and characterized them as a victory. >> it is 100% the way it should s been. i wish it could have gone quicker. we can't let this happen to another president. we can never ever let this happen to another president again. >> this is something frankly that should never have happened. this is a two-year waste of taxpayer's time and dollars. they spent $22 million just to find out there is nothing there. >> the entire inquiry that we have said there is no collusion between the trump campaign and the russians and that determination proverd to be correct. >> if there is a cloud remaining, it is on the issue of obstruction.
mueller's determination on whether or not trump tried to interfere in the investigation is not quite as clear. the special counsel punted on that topic. investigators did not draw a conclusion either way. instead attorney general barr wrote the report quote, "sets out evidence on both sides of the questions and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as difficult issues of law. while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. our deputy rod rosenstein made their own determination that they do not believe the president obstructed justice. the special counsel requested an interview with donald trump but trump's attorney only allowed written answers on questions of conspiracy to the special counsel. if robert mueller had the chance to sit down face-to-face with
the president and ask about obstruction, may he know more about his intent. that's just one of a number of unanswered questions that currently remains. we don't know how long the report is and we don't know what mueller found. was there more? if so, how much more politically damaging could it be? >> the only way to know is actually get our hands-on robert mueller's report. the big question we are asking today, will we ever see it? >> joining me nbc national security julia ainsley and our white house bureau chief, phil rucker. editor and chief of the brookings institution, ben whitis. julia, the big headline is there were no conspiracy found. the sub headline though that
mueller's team did not make a decision on obstruction. they left that to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. you had new reporting that the special counsel gave a heads up to the attorney general weeks ago that they would not be making a determination on obstruction. >> reporter: katy, we were coming into work today wondering why the attorney general make that decision so quickly. he only got it when he got the full report on friday afternoon and he turned around by sunday afternoon and was able to say you know what, he did not have enough evidence that the president obstructed justice. today i got an answer to that. a source familiar of the meeting said three weeks ago, robert mueller came here and met with the attorney general, the department attorney general and p members of the special counsel's team. we are not going to reach a decision on obstruction.
this was unexpected and even caught rosenstein who's overseeing this investigation. it caught him by surprise. they did not think they would have this plate on them. they thought robert mueller would make a decision on obstruction. ton corn spnspiracy question. today we are wondering what the attorney general to release. he still feels that it is his responsibility to make that decision even though it was not explicitly clear from robert mueller. >> did he have that portion of the report three weeks ago? >> i am not clear how many details he was able to share. he was able to say he was nod going to make that decision. that did not change. i was essentially locked in three weeks ago and may be while we may be hearing rumbling.
while they were gathering more things that would go into the final version of this report. i think that timing is key. we think that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general had more time to make that decision that really surprised a lot of us. >> if they did not have the full report until friday, that means on the question of obstruction, ben whitis, they're still making that determination based on what they had in front of them within the 48 hours period. why do you think if you have a guess on this, why did mueller punt on obstruction? >> first of all, the answer to that question is we don't know. the second point is that answer to that question is i think really is important to evaluating what happened here including by the way evaluating what bill barr did.
one possibility that mueller you know as your word punts suggested sort could not reach a decision and kind of just dec e decided, you know, i give up, i am going to ask the attorney general to convince. another possibility that's likely is that mueller made a judgment that because he was not going to bring in an indictment against the president anyway and because there is these hard legal questions of the application of obstruction statue to president conduct. the better court was to lay out the conduct and the various legal arguments on other side and bill barr decided i need to fill in that gap. i think those are different situations. i don't know which is the one that happened but they strike me as quite different and they would imply different things.
>> well, i wonder if he's going to leave it open with the intention of allowing somebody else to make that determination as if it was going to be bill barr. i wonder if the intention was to leave it open and give it to congress and put it in congress's hands and make the determination about whether the president obstructed justice and to do with that what they would. >> exactly. >> yeah, go ahead. >> you know the reason to leave it open if you are robert mueller in this scenario, it is because you say the real question here is not a question criminality since i don't have the authority to indict the president anyway. the real question is whether congress thinks this fact pattern is so unacceptable as a matter of presidential behavior that it should be thought of in the impeachment contest. that would be the argument for not even treating it as a traditional criminal matter or thinking about it in that
framework but laying out the facts during the investigation and letting others make their judgment based on it. but, in that event, the question is why did bill barr stepped in and make the criminal judgment but again we just don't know what happened. >> especially when we consider of the past impeachments of the hearing and trials we had have around the questions of obstruction. >> the special counsel made a decision on collusion and then they turn on the second half of the letter and they said we are not going to engage in normal department or justice -- excuse me, you are under the umbrella of the department of justice, that's what you do. it is puzzling. and as to the possibility and why it happens. there was no reason why the special counsel, katy, could not make the decision and what i am trying to argue politely is he
should have one way or another, let the chips fall where they are. there is a question though as you have been hearing, can you obstruct justice when the under line is in a crime. thens a is technically yes. somebody subpoenaed and go in and even if it turns out it was not a crime. as a practical matter quite honestly, i think the special counsel correctly factored that in in terms of intent as the under line crime. >> do we need to see the entire report? >> obstruction is something that would not be as black and white. >> no, it would not be as sensitive as some of the other materials. >> you guys have made another critical point which is putting aside that the president is not required to testify but if you force him, he would not want to take the fifth amendment, we discussed that before. >> yeah. >> the fact the matter is that's a key way if you just said to get into this realm of what is
it? >> well, just in fairness and it is done by inference from other information. but, again on this question of corrupt intent, in other words, can you see your way clear to dropping this matter against flynn. that sounds horrible and in advisable, question she. for it to be a crime, you will need corrupt intent, i will hire you if you do that, that kind of thing. >> robert, still the headline here, this is the question now for over two years especially with all the puzzling things that happened during the election when donald trump asked russia to find the e-mails and the trump tower meeting with don jr. and jared kushner and paul manafort as well. all the people who have been indicted and lied about their contacts with russia, the open question white house why would they do that and was that because they were trying to conspire with russia to affect
the election. robert mueller seems to be clear from that point from the summary of barr. that was no, there was not a conspiracy with russia and coordinated effort. this was not something that happened during the 2016 election and that cloud is lifted. >> that's right katy, what robert mueller did not show according to the four pages we read from attorney barr summarizing the report is an explanation why the president acted the way he did. why did he say to you in that news conference, russia if you got the demaie-mails, let's see. why has he acted squirmy on any topic of russia or putin and taking steps as president to force this investigation and perhaps the full mueller report will document more of that. we don't know or maybe we'll find out some day. mueller have drawn a
determination of conspiracy but have not experience the manner. >> it was way too disorganized as they always claimed. we could not go across ordering a sandwich between one of the campaign aides would put it to me. >> it was a disorganized campaign. it was a campaign in the sense of all sorts of figures floating around the trump's orbit at various times not on the campaign but involved in some way. roger stone is an example of that. he's somebody on the campaign for a brief period of time at the start. for years he had been a trump's associate and confidante. so you know you talk to campaign
officials from the trump 2016 campaign and they sort of laugh at the idea that they had some strategies to conclude and conspire with the russians because they can barely get from iowa from new hampshire and south carolina without screwing something up. it was that sort of half hazard of them. >> as you are reporting and kristen welker is reporting and others reporting that the campaign, the 2020 donald trump campaign will use this as a political, bludgeon if you well to go out there and hit the democrats and the establishments and the media and say this was all a big nothing burger and donald trump is the victim, expect that to happen. i guess buckle up. phil rucker, julia ainsley. thank you, guys. after the break, federal prosecutors are set to file charges against lawyer avenatti,
ranging from embezzlement to extortion. whenever we're about to get on a stage for a huge audience, i always give my dad like a facetime kinda moment. you see the crowd, you see the emotion. you know, he has that experience for the first time with me, and that's really important to me. i created a rockstar. (both laughing) (vo) there for you when it matters most. get iphone xr on us when you buy the latest iphone. and apple music on us with unlimited. only on verizon. it's nice. ♪ you got this! ♪ woo! ♪
joining me now our tom winter and here in the newsroom, legal analyst, danny cevallos. tom, you are talking to us on the phone, we expect to hear something, right? >> that's correct. we expect for a press conference of what you are describing the scene by michael avenatti apparently to make statements and then paid top players to attend certain nike universities. we don't know anything about those allegations by avenatti and whether or not it is true. it is just what he proposed to nike, he'll get pay $20 million to be tasked with internal investigations into this in according that avenatti was not tainted and does not need the
internal investigationors for n. he tweeted two hours ago and 20 to 30 minutes after that, he was arrested by the fbi here in new york. he's expected in court today. this is on a recorded phone call that he says as soon as this becomes public, i am going to receive calls from all kinds of people. they're all going to say i got an e-mail or text message or now 90% of it is going to be bs. it is always bs 90% of the time whether it is r. kelly or trump. the list goes on and on. is it going to snowball? every time we got more information, it is going to be the washington post and new york times. they're going to encourage cut after cut and that's what's
going to happen as soon as this thing becomes public. he's going to be charged in los angeles today. he has been charged in los angeles today. embezzling money from some of his clients, that's a serious charge as an attorney and misrepresented income on his tax returns in order to get a loan, similar to what michael cohen was guilty to several months ago. a turn of event for stormy daniels' attorney. >> danny cevallos, tom laid out the phone call they intercepted where he said explicitly what would happen to nike if this news got out when he asked for a settlement and this arrest here came minutes after he tweeted this and we'll put the tweet on the screen, tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. we'll hold a press
conference to disclose a major high school basketball cscandal that perp participated erpetrat. what's the line between hey, you are going to want to settle with us and extortion. >> it is a fine line. the courts discussed this many times. the general hold is even a lousy lawsuit, a lawsuit without a lot of merit can't form the basis of an extortion claim even if you threaten that lawsuit. the key is, there does not appear to be the lawsuit here and the threat were not about filing suits. they were about economic ruins. they're about i am going to destroy your morning cap. i am going to hold a press conference and make an announcement. as you read this document, it does not appear of contemplated lawsuit which would have brought it. avenatti could have brought this
conduct very easily into the realm of lawful by legitimately threatening a legitimate lawsuit one of actual bases in law in in fact, it appears that he did not do so, instead i know some dirt about you nike, if you don't pay up tomorrow, i am going to have al press conferen a press conference and announce it. >> it fits neatly. >> this is not about finding justice. this seems to be more of getting a monetary payment. >> that's exactly right. >> the end goal is to get a monetary payment. to secure access to the courts for litigants, the idea is that you file a lawsuit so a mutual third party decides who owes what. if you pick up the phone and say pay me or i will reveal information, that falls into the definition of extortion. >> here is what we are looking at on the screen.
that's the podium where the u.s. attorney will come out and detail the allegations against michael avenatti. you can see there is an easel there. presumably there will be something putting up there, charts or some sorts of pictures, or something that'll be shown to the press alongside the announcement of michael avenatti's charges. oh, what a twist of faith. we'll be watching this news conference. it should start in about 5 minutes. tom winter is down there. we'll tell you what we have learn. danny cevallos, thank you. dthe democratic congress wh sits on the oversight committee, he joins me next. next
oversight be taken to clear this up? >> bob mueller spent two years investigating this and he was unable to draw a conclusion on whether president trump broke the law or obstruction and here will byn william barr spent 48 hours. we want to see the actual evidence that mueller compiled. he wanted this to go to congress for congress to deliberate and see if any laws withere broken. >> when do you expect to hear back from attorney general barr about testifying before your committee, nbc news reported that jerry nadler has contacted the doj in order to request that. well, i can't see any reasons for well yum bailliam barr not the judicial committee and the
oversight committee. he owns the american people. the bob mueller really wanted to consult william barr, don't you think they would have had those conversations and bob mueller would have put that in the report. there is a reason he did not draw the conclusion in that report. he thought it was congress's fought and we have to know bid barr talked to the president in drawing these conclusions or bob mueller confirm about this beforehand? he owes the american people an explanation. >> according to the summary, bob mueller did not find any evidence of conspiracy or collusion between the trump campaign, donald trump himself and the russians lifting the cloud on the presidency when it comes to questions of conspiracy or conclusion. how far are you willing to take these obstructions of justice.
>> there are two things. the russia interference with our election. he concluded that the russians wanted trump to win. the russians hacked into the dnc e-mails and manipulated social media for false propaganda. there was definitely interference. we don't know the extent of the evidence since the trump campaign involvement. we know it does not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. you can be convicted or committing a crime of obstruction of justice even if you are not convicted of the n under lining fine. if anyone has many doubts about this, they can ask martha stewart. >> we see so much publicly that
donald trump sat down with lester holt. all the tweets intimidating witnesses and the intimidation of jeff's sessions. what else do you need to know? i want to understand why bob mueller decided not to ask the president to testify. there may be an explanation for that in the report. i want to understand why bob mueller said that the evidence does not exonerate the president and what conclusion or why he reach that conclusion and what evidence he saw that was problematic. e think it is enforcement read the report and have bob mueller testify and explain to the american people of his thinking. >> is the goal here to find reasons to impeach him? >> no. the primary goal is to make sure this russian interference never happens again and everyone knows russia was rooting for president trump to win and every american -- >> is looking at the
obstruction, is it awaiting for the primary goal. >> that's a secondary role. we have to make sure we have separation of powers and a -- even if it does not rise to the level or impeachable offense or crime. i am convinced that there is a misconduct that gotten close to the line. so then no future president does this. >> you are already looking into the hush money payments and the campaign finance violations and security clearances, does the question of obstruction, is that more of a priority? >> katy, people say why are you watching all of these investigations?
it was not a hard question. it is part of our oversight responsible. the secure issue is important. the financial guard. did the president violate norms or laws regarding obstruction of justice. >> let's go to michael avenatti. avenatti's conduct had nothing to do with advocacy for a client or any kind of legitimate legal work. instead, avenatti used illegal and extortion threats with a purpose of obtaining millions of dollars in payments for himself. avenatti holds a press conference that he claims
dramatically driving down the stock price. as avenatti threatened in one recorded meeting, if the company did not leave his demands, the company may die but if not, it was quote, "going to be inflicted with cut after cut and after cut." as alleged of the entire scheme played out in less than a week. avenatti first met with representatives of the company last tuesday, march 19th in manhattan. at that meeting, avenatti says he represented a client who coached an amateur basketball team sponsored by nike. the team had recently lost that contract, worth $72,000 a year and avenatti claims the coach had information about misconduct of employees at nike. the allegation of these conducts
were similar kind to those on a criminal prosecution brought by our office. that payments were made to families of high school basketball players. . >> in that meeting that were repo recorded, avenatti threatened to hold a press conference as which he'll make the allegation public as the company did not agree to his financial demands. he fore ego -- for avenatti himself to remain avenatti and another co-conspirator to conduct a multi million dollars investigation that the company did not request. >> avenatti made clear that he was approaching the company in a
time that social to maximize of such a press conference, namely on the eve of the annual ncaa tournament. as avenue threaten one call recorded during the investigation. if a company did not aseed to his financial demands and his words, quotes, i will take $10 billion off your client's mark off cap. when asked by a lawyer why the company would agree to such an agreement, avenatti responded in substance that he had the confidence in a vulnerable position where he can wipe out five to $6 billion of his market
capit capitol. avenatti told the company it could skip paying for internal investigations if it instead, it simply pay him 22 or $25 billion. avenatti said he would quote, ride off into the sunset. pressure and a sense of urgency. >> reporter: used with gleering this threat. this all happens of a period of three days. >> day one. news, tuesday, this is the first meeting wean avenatti and representative from nike and coke conspirator. >> i will be meeting avenatti for the first time. following that meeting, representatives to my office and inform our office of the
extortion and threats made by avenat avenatti. going forward, all interactions between nike representatives and avenatti were overseas by the fbi, any office. on day two, we understand, march there was 20 phone calls without aver any and the coconspirator wheth whether. on day three, there was a meeting. last thursday, avenatti repeated his demands and threats and as you can see he graphically describe his home in the company. at the end of the meeting on thursday. there would be one final
meeting, the coming monday which is today. that that meeting nike would -- >> two hours after that meeting, avenatti decided to turn up the keep on nike. he shoots a tweet. something tells me we have not reach the end of this scandal. he's talking about college basketball corruption. the scandal is far broader than imagined. why this tweet went out to the public who was intended and designed for audience of one. it was michael avenatti's shot across nike's vows.
three the combat, avenatti used legal terms like claims and settlements and retainers. these were devices to cover afterty extortion of the plan for a massive payday himself. avenatti was not acting as an attorney. a soup and due does not match the fact. this was an -- the assistant general in charge. i want to thank him and his team for the professionalism and seeing this investigation through. i want to acknowledge and thank the career prosecutors in my office for their roles of the
investigations and prosecution. to my right is robert boone, rob si silverman. these public services is really extraordinary. >> our legal system, our system of justice requires and relies on attorneys, members of the bar to not simply follow the law but hope its finds the highest principles and ideas. >> as a guy to ex tort payments for them sales, they are no longer acting as attorneys there. they are acting as criminals and they'll be held responsible. i would like to invite bill sweeney to the paid yum. >> thank you, sheriff. >> michael avenatti was arrested for the charges that was
outlined by the u.s. attorney. this was nothing more than a and blou brought to the fbi for red cross assistant. >> this type of behavior is illegal and it will not be tolerated especially when committed by a lawyer who's supposed to use his practice to practice law and not to violate. thank you very much. thank you to your team who stands to my right. >> we'll take your questions. >> what's the difference between legal extortion? >> extortion, when you threaten to do something and you don't have a plausible right of that same value.
here avenatti was not exporting from seeking money from a client, he was seeking money for himself. our investigation is continuing. our investigation continues. there you have it, jeffrey verman, laying out the scheme as they see it. you might have just heard that first question from my colleague, what's the difference between legal extortion and extortion. >> michael avenatti was not speaking money for a client. he was seeking money for
himself. >> back to we, danny cevallos. >> that's why you see the government attorneys stressing that that was not about lawsuit. in fact the whole lawsuit of it was by pass. this was instead about giving us money or we'll announce things that are embarrassing. that's it. that's the end of the the transaction. it is important and the government attorney made that point that there is a difference so to protect it, threats are not so legitimate litigation. this was the courthouse. that's a crime >> not for a crime but for avenatti himself. >> that's right. he's asking him, maybe to pay attorney fees or maybe how
avenatti would characterize it. >> michael avenue any will quickly find a motion to throw this case out. based on in efficiency on that building. >> they'll try to defend this case based on the notion that threat threatens are protected. the southern district is all right taken charge of this. this was not about the filing of a legitimate lawsuit or even a weak lawsuit. >> what's happening in los angeles. >> there is a news conference out there that's ongoing. is this more serious or less serious of what we are seeing today about ex portion. >> lawyers read the criminal complaint of california. it describes the conduct that's beaten into our head from the beginning of law school to not
engage in. >> it is staggering. for several years avenatti was not paying taxes. not this reporting, he didn't file income kaks return. it is so staggering. i read it several times. >> it alleging he misrecorded his income in order to obtained loans. for lowers, for him to deceive the client when the settlement came in, monkey around the client's trust account which is something that's an automatic loss of your law license. >> does it sound like he's trying to pay off bills? >> it sounds like. >> that's what we rules on the trust account. that's the fastest route to disbarrment. it is so easy.
>> the police -- it is so easy to rob peter to pay paul. if your electric bill is late at the law enforcement, oh, your client will borrow from it and we'll bring it back. absolutely. >> he found sbilty of that, we can expect to see him this far. >> that's the least of his concern getting this far, that's the fact pattern that you are given in your ethic exams where the correct answer is lawyer gave us. thank you for adjectiving us the avenatti's report. >> mueller in have igs has ended and it appears there is no smoking gun to be found. appears being the operative
word. >> general general barr memos le left. joining me now, michael joining me now is michael caputo. you sent me a text saying you were marked safe from robert mueller, friday -- >> it is all blending together. >> yeah, i still feel thatway. listen, i still have friends who are in harms way, especially roger stone, and we see the crimes they're accusing him of rose out of collusion that didn't exist. my family is breathing a sigh of relief. it is time for us to press play, but i'm worried about some othe others. >> if there was no collusion, why did they lie about their interactions with russians and get in hot water with the
special council. why lie if there is no crime? >> it is kind of cube yourself to put it into the count. >> that's not the media, this is robert mueller and -- >> i get that, i get that. i get that. i think it is dubious for robert mueller, i think it is dubious for robert mueller's team to count a handshake at a public event as an encounter with a russian. and when someone doesn't remember it on a side bar, that is not a russian contact that should be considered not of serious concern. all of the media counted that up, and there are over a dozen contacts like that who smou or another add up to russia interaction. >> i don't -- nobody was, nobody was saying a handshake at the convention, a quick handshake is why they were convicted of
lying. >> of course it was, it is counting every day, j.d. gordon's interaction with russia was on the side bar of a public event. >> jeff sessions had a meeting with kislyak. >> i they're we're dancing on the head of a pin here. i have not gotten to the bottom of a question here, why did so many people lied about russia. >> i don't think so many lied about russia. >> let sam talk, please, michael. >> i think there is different poetives, george poppadopulous was still looking for a job.
another point is that yes, this part of it is over, but barr's first paragraph of that first -- of the second page of his letter, he says these are ongoing matters that were given off, this has not worked off for sitting presidents in the path. in 1992 they had an investigation and sixth days before the election you had four indictments, barr, by the way, was the acting attorney general that wrote for george h.w. bush the par don letters and clinton and comey. you cover it'd in the oval officer, they say are you worried about the mueller investigation, and he immediately says no, and he says what about the southern district, and he says i don't know about that. >> and he told mike the shipmch
that looking into his finances would be a no. >> you came away from the soc l special council's team feeling like they really had something on him. >> i'm -- this is what i'm surprised about. in the barr letter it says for conspiracy, which is a different level of criminality, but they looked at approval and ultimately they said that the trump campaign had no cooperation with russians, so when you look at the comment donald trump made to you it was highly problematic. and that was listed in the indictment. in the conspiracy to defraud america. i would have loved to have been a fly on the wall where mueller had to make the decision of whether or not this all got to
the cone of putting any american implicated in a principal point of view to defraud america. >> do you think the president should have accounted differently? let the personal council do his work and wait for his adult before attacking him day in and day out? >> i don't see how president really, all of the questions and the hand ringing, pass a bill to stop him from firing mueller, mueller is still around, whether you like him or don't and i don't like him a lot of the time, what they have done to roger and others i doepn't appreciate. but this was the strongest investigators that america had to offer, and they're coming out
with a no collusion conclusion. and the obstruction stuff is in the air, but the question is whether or not a president could obstruct justice for firing someone she allhe is legally alo fire. i think the democrats will have a tough time sifting through the rubble of this investigation and come up with enough to impeach the president. but i think they will try to do it and i think we should -- don't buy popcorn, invest in popcorn. in you're a farmer start growing popcorn, it will get more interesting. >> i think quickly on obstruction, what we don't know is what is fable. in terms of donald trump's firing of james comey. if they talking about
obstruction of justice in the course of the investigation, and the mueller investigation, if someone say is this a witch hunt? i say yes and no. what i don't, what i think the president did highly problematic things and caused this to happen including hosting the russians the day after he fired comey. >> joining me now is eli stokele, also david corn. just one issue with what michael caputo said there, being a politically motivated investigation, a lot of career investigators that would take issue with that. eli you, on the campaign trail over the weekend, do you feel that voters are having a correcten i
correctenning -- reckoning on this? >> it just did not seem to be animating that part of the elector rate. obviously they're very eager to have the opportunity to make trump a one-term president, but the things they seem to want to hear from the contenders were not about that. they were about pocketbook issues, and i think that is something that nancy pelosi has points to. i think are members of the caucus, members of the house, that might bet that trump more cloudily and there could be more if more of the mueller report is released. there could be more cause to pursue that but generally on the ground that is not what voters seem to want. >> david you wrote a look on this. robert mueller found no evidence of conspiracy. are you rethinking anything? >> no, in the book mooek m av--
avenatti was -- i never thought they plotted this out in the kremlin, but they were sending a signal that we don't mind your doing this and trump spent the general election begdenying it happening. so he amplified russian disinvestigation when they were attacking us and he made it easier for the russians to get away with it. not all betrayal is criminal. i think the media missed the depths of this great scandal. >> david conor, eli stockles. gentlemen, thank you very much, we'll get back into this on
another day, i'm sure, i'm running out of time rapidly and ali velshi is back, giving me the side eye. >> i have put my head back together because at 1:00 i was on tv and this michael avenatti stuff broke and it is that moment where it is like this little hard drive is was overloaded. >> my producer said go home, news, you're drunk. >> you're out tonight? >> no, chuck todd will be anchoring "meet the press daily" tonight, but i will be in for him for the rest of the week. >> we're getting a better picture this hour about michael avenatti. he was arrested this afternoon he was hit with felony charges tied to two